The Deuterocanonical Books And The Apocrypha-Why Aren't They A Part Of

Metal Minister said:

The books are not theópneustos. While some still use them as historical works, they are not accepted as being "God-breathed". Many have major contradictions to known historical events as well as contradictions to the accepted books. Here's a very good debate on the subject:

The Great Debate IX: Is The Apocrypha Scripture? …: The Great Debate IX: Is The Apocrypha Scripture? (White vs Michuta) - YouTube

Click to expand...

It might be helpful to have someone well-versed in Church history to watch this video. I'm not quite an hour into it.

Of course, nearly anything produced is going to have a bias. There are not many who will spend money in a search for the truth - usually it is already established in their mind.

The evangelical debater indeed has a good presence, and is well-spoken. I have noticed some bias (the whole debate is "Roman" Catholic vs. Evangelicals and appears to focus on the council of Trent as defining Scripture - as though there was no canon at all before that time?). I also find his comments on Church history, claiming that the ECFs that suppoted the books that were later removed by the Protestants to be allowed because of their "ignorance" to be ... well ... I won't say what I find that comment to be.

I will only say this - no matter what the topic - it is very unwise to form one's opinions on the basis of a single debate, particularly a video or live debate (as opposed to a written one). Presence is a highly influential factor, where it ought not be. I learned this LONG ago, when I realized that a person can be very persuasive - and yet very wrong.

One also wonders if the best speaker for the "Roman" Catholic side of the debate was chosen. I mean the man no insult, but his arguments did not appear to be the strongest ones that could have been given, and I honestly just don't know who he is or how well he might be regarded.

It would seem the entire focus is on "Evangelicals" vs. "Roman Catholics" though - and that is misguided and demonstrates bias from the start.

~Cassia~ said:

....
However, and I will stand by this because I believe at the time of the reformation there was the need for the ark of the word of God to be carried away, that as God protected it in the land of the Philistines and returned it Himself, so He was able to keep it then. And if anything cannot stand on God`s word there .....well.... good luck convincing....

Click to expand...

So James that is the reason that I believe they were not included, because God said enuff is enuff.

Metal Minister said:

I noticed earlier someone mentioned the apocrypha was scripture because it was in the septuigiant. That's like saying the funny pages are news stories because they're in my Sunday newspaper.

Click to expand...

~Cassia~ said:

interesting point

Apocrypha are statements or claims that are of dubious authenticity. The word's origin is the Medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical", from the Greek adjective ἀπόκρυφος (apokryphos), "obscure", from the verb ἀποκρύπτειν (apokryptein), "to hide away".

Click to expand...

Cassia, I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate.

Metal Minister, you would rather use the canon of the Pharisees? There are direct links between the NT and deuterocanon.

MoreCoffee said:

Whatever reasons exist for removing canonical scripture to create a Protestant bible they cannot be right. The canon was set by christians some time in the fourth century AD and was endorsed by church councils in that century and in the centuries following.

Click to expand...

Hi MC,

I'm certainly willing to be 'educated' on this issue, but...

The research I have done allow that there are two early manuscripts which give a list of 'accepted' writings that were then believed to be the 'Scriptures' of the new covenant writings.

The earliest list of New Testament books of which we have definite knowledge was drawn up at Rome by the heretic Marcion about 140. Marcion's canon consisted of two parts: (a) an expurgated edition of the third Gospel, which is the least Jewish of the Gospels, being written by the Gentile Luke; and (b) ten of the Pauline Epistles (the three 'Pastoral Epistles' being omitted). Marcion's list, however, does not represent the current verdict of the Church but a deliberate aberration from it.

Another early list, also of Roman provenance, dated about the end of the second century, is that commonly called the 'Muratorian Fragment,' because it was first published in Italy in 1740 by the antiquarian Cardinal L. A. Muratori. It is unfortunately mutilated at the beginning, but it evidently mentioned Matthew and Mark, because it refers to Luke as the third Gospel; then it mentions John, Acts, 'Paul's nine letters to churches and four to individuals (Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy), Jude, two Epistles of John, and the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter.' The Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned as worthy to be read (i.e. in church) but not to be included in the number of prophetic or apostolic writings.

Therefore, for one to say that the writings in question here were 'removed' from the Scriptures seems a bit odd to me. It would seem to me that the writings in question were actually much later 'added' to the Scriptures. History shows that they were not actually claimed to be a part of Scripture until sometime in the 1500's. Funny, to me, how we now some 500 years later, tend to see them as 'removed' and not 'added'.

To me, it would seem that, as fairly usual, the catholic organization first recognized the canon of Scripture as the current protestant canon. Later, through the wisdom of men, they decided to 'add' more, even though it was part of their work that established and closed the first. Quite in line with the 'fish on Friday' laws of the same organization. Sort of like a reed bending and swaying with the wind.

However, that is only what I have gleaned from some light research and I'm confident will not be agreed to by you. Perhaps you would be willing to post your research that would show when these other writings were mentioned by some first, second or third century christian group as being God-breathed Scripture.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

~Cassia~ said:

interesting point

Apocrypha are statements or claims that are of dubious authenticity. The word's origin is the Medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical", from the Greek adjective ἀπόκρυφος (apokryphos), "obscure", from the verb ἀποκρύπτειν (apokryptein), "to hide away".

Click to expand...

GoingByzantine said:

Cassia, I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate.

.

Click to expand...

I'm not insinuating anything, just giving a definition that points to something other than fact. If that is somehow not what the books are called then I apologize.

~Cassia~ said:

That responsibility should also be carried over to discernment of what is outside of cannon into what is inside of cannon. There needs to be more than one witness within scriptural reference for an interpretation to be correct. If for instance the book of Enoch has information then you would expect to find it repeated thru out scripture because God does teach that way.

Click to expand...

There are references to Enoch, and other books not in the canon. A lot of the non-canonical books say the same things, but often with more detail than their pithy NT supplements.

The problem with "it should be repeated..." is that the canon may categorically exclude the repetition - considering it uninspired. But, this is why it is important that all books be part of the learning. No human has the right to determine what is spiritually important for another human, and it is our jobs to discern: not a council, not a scholar, not a layperson.

CryOfALion said:

There are references to Enoch, and other books not in the canon. A lot of the non-canonical books say the same things, but often with more detail than their pithy NT supplements.

The problem with "it should be repeated..." is that the canon may categorically exclude the repetition - considering it uninspired. But, this is why it is important that all books be part of the learning. No human has the right to determine what is spiritually important for another human, and it is our jobs to discern: not a council, not a scholar, not a layperson.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is doing as you suggested. My opinion is that if a question can't be upheld within what was left after the Protestant dispersion then it's not nessesary for salvation. My opinion is also that details from other books used need to be discerned very carefully. Chew the meat and spit out the bones. Must be off to church now

Rhamiel said:

lol I like that line

but I think we have to try and flip this debate
those books were removed from the cannon of scripture
so really the burden of proof should be on those who do not want those books to be accepted

Click to expand...

Normally I would say there is always a positive and negative argument but in this case, both sides are a bit of both. Those on the side of keeping them, need to provide a solid reason for keeping them, and those on the other side need to provide a solid reason for not keeping them. My disagreement stems from the historical and doctrinal contradictions contained therein.

Take for instance Judith identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1)

There are more, like claiming the temple was rebuilt 100 Years before it was destroyed, etc.

MoreCoffee said:

Whatever reasons exist for removing canonical scripture to create a Protestant bible they cannot be right. The canon was set by christians some time in the fourth century AD and was endorsed by church councils in that century and in the centuries following.

Click to expand...

BTW, if you're up to doing some one on one studying, I'd be interested in seeing what your evidence is that gives you the understanding that the cannon was set by 'christians' some time in the fourth century AD and just what exactly that canon was. Do you have some historical evidence from the fourth century AD of a list of the books that were included and settled as canon?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

However, that is only what I have gleaned from some light research and I'm confident will not be agreed to by you. Perhaps you would be willing to post your research that would show when these other writings were mentioned by some first, second or third century christian group as being God-breathed Scripture.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

Many ECF quote from them.......
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

concretecamper said:

Many ECF quote from them.......
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Click to expand...

I can quote from Moby Dick, it doesn't mean I believe it is scripture.

Metal Minister said:

I can quote from Moby Dick, it doesn't mean I believe it is scripture.

Click to expand...

None of the ECF quoted Moby Dick....but they did have a great influence on what became the canon of the Bible. It is funny....you must use opposite sides of the same argument to substantiate what you consider inspired books....unless you believe the bible somehow substantiates itself

concretecamper said:

None of the ECF quoted Moby Dick....but they did have a great influence on what became the canon of the Bible. It is funny....you must use opposite sides of the same argument to substantiate what you consider inspired books....unless you believe the bible somehow substantiates itself

Click to expand...

Actually in many regards it does. There is a vast difference between mentioning something from a work, and either quoting it verbatim or preaching it with words like "the Lord has said..." I highly recommend the debate I posted at the beginning of this thread to help clear up your misconceptions.

Metal Minister said:

Actually in many regards it does. There is a vast difference between mentioning something from a work, and either quoting it verbatim or preaching it with words like "the Lord has said..." I highly recommend the debate I posted at the beginning of this thread to help clear up your misconceptions.

Click to expand...

My misconception ? Funny considering most reputable theologians are against your claim....oh well

concretecamper said:

My misconception ? Funny considering most reputable theologians are against your claim....oh well

Click to expand...

That is another incorrect assumption. Perhaps most Catholic theologians are against "my claim" but beyond that, your assertion is incorrect. Again, I highly recommend the debate I already posted.

*addendum*

You may also enjoy this video as well:

The Reliability of the New Testament Text (Dr. Ja…: http://youtu.be/LuiayuxWwuI

An interesting article I found in regards to the op:

Seripando was Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the[bless and do not curse]canon morum[bless and do not curse]in contrast to the[bless and do not curse]canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma.

Click to expand...

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.p...trent-and-what-did-he-think-of-the-apocrypha/

Metal Minister said:

An interesting article I found in regards to the op:

Who Was One Of The Best Scholars at Trent, And What Did He Think Of The Apocrypha? | Alpha and Omega Ministries

Click to expand...

Scholars often are impressed with this or that perspective expressed in an early church father but with regard to the canon of sacred scripture it is the church that decides not individual scholars.

Metal Minister said:

An interesting article I found in regards to the op:



Who Was One Of The Best Scholars at Trent, And What Did He Think Of The Apocrypha? | Alpha and Omega Ministries

Click to expand...

You exhibit typical protestant reasoning...I myself am the final authority.

concretecamper said:

You exhibit typical protestant reasoning...I myself am the final authority.

Click to expand...